L’oeuvre de Marcel Duchamp. L’objet dans l’art du XXe siècle. http://www.zumbazone.com/duchamp/index.html http://www.understandingduchamp.com/
Portrait, unknow, 1917.
Portrait, Man Ray, 1921.
Portrait, Alfred Stieglitz, circa 1923.
Nu aux bas noirs, 1910.
Nu descendant l’escalier, 1912.
Woman WalkingDownstairs, Eadweard Muybridge, 1877.
Woman Walking Downstairs (detail), Eadweard Muybridge, 1877.
Dessin satirique de JF Briswold sur l’Armory Show paru dans le New-York Evening Sun du 20 mars 1913.
Duchamp descending a staircase, Eliot Elisofon, 1952.
Broyeuse de chocolat, 1914.
Le grand verre (La mariée mise à nu par ses célibataires, même) 1915-1923.
Original perdu (Paris,1913). Réplique sous la direction de Marcel Duchamp (1964).
Roue de bicyclette.
Original perdu (Paris, 1914). Réplique sous la direction de Marcel Duchamp (1964).
Original perdu (New York, 1917). Réplique sous la direction de Marcel Duchamp (1964).
Rrose Selavy, circa 1920.
Note 169, circa 1923.
Rotative plaques verre, 1920.
Rotativeplaques verre, 1920.
Rotative plaques verre, 1920.
Rotary Demisphere, 1925.
La boîte verte (La mariée mise à nu par ses célibataires, même) 1934.
La boîte-en-valise, 1936/1968.
Coin de chasteté, 1954.
Prière de toucher, 1947.
Duchamp retrospective at Pasadena museum, chess with Eve Babitz, october 18, 1963.
Portrait, UgoMulas, 1965.
The creative act.
Marcel Duchamp. Let us consider two important factors, the two poles of the creation of art: the artist on the one hand, and on the other the spectator who later becomes the posterity. To all appearances, the artist acts like a mediumistic being who, from the labyrinth beyond time and space, seeks his way out to a clearing. If we give the attributes of a medium tothe artist, we must then deny him the state of consciousness on the esthetic plane about what he is doing or why he is doing it. All his decisions in the artistic execution of the work rest with pure intuition and cannot be translated into a self-analysis, spoken or written, or even thought out. T.S. Eliot, in his essay on «Tradition and Individual Talent», writes: «The more perfect the artist,the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates; the more perfectly will the mind digest and transmute the passions which are its material.» Millions of artists create; only a few thousands are discussed or accepted by the spectator and many less again are consecrated by posterity. In the last analysis, the artist may shout from all the rooftops that he isa genius: he will have to wait for the verdict of the spectator in order that his declarations take a social value and that, ﬁnally, posterity includes him in the primers of Artist History. I know that this statement will not meet with the approval of many artists who refuse this mediumistic role and insist on the validity of their awareness in the creative act - yet, art history has consistentlydecided upon the virtues of a work of art thorough considerations completely divorced from the rationalized explanations of the artist. If the artist, as a human being, full of the best intentions toward himself and the whole world, plays no role at all in the judgment of his own work, how can one describe the phenomenon which prompts the spectator
to react critically to the work of art ? Inother words, how does this reaction come about ? This phenomenon is comparable to a transference from the artist to the spectator in the form of an esthetic osmosis taking place through the inert matter, such as pigment, piano or marble. But before we go further, I want to clarify our understanding of the word «art» - to be sure, without any attempt at a deﬁnition. What I have in mind is that art...